Template talk:FOSS personalities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2006 October 24. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:FOSS personalities page.
Archives: 1
Free software Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
NA rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale
NA rated as NA-importance on the assessment scale


Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Bob Scheifler?

I dunno if Bob Scheifler belongs in this list. Sure, he was the progenitor of the X window system, but ... nobody celebrates him for it, nor does he seek any limelight. When, for example, was the last time Bob gave a talk about X11? The last time I saw him speak publicly was at the X conference in 1987. You remember 1987, don't you? It was in all the history books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussNelson (talk • contribs)

To me the point of this template is NOT to celebrate those who are famous in the FOSS world, but those who have made a large difference to the world through the FOSS movement. It's about Contribution, Effort, Vision, and Effect -- that sets an example for others to follow. By these criteria, Bob Scheifler belongs. BTW, Bob was celebrated at the time. - Lentower 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Len. FWIW, I would cite Bob as the single biggest influence on my thinking about free and open source software. I was doing documentation for various free software programs before X, but it was Bob whose generosity of spirit first impressed me with the broader ideals of FOSS. What's more, the X model had an indirect role in the commercialization of the web. We started the development of Docbook, and released Viola (the first graphical web browser) as free software because of Bob's notion that you should release a reference implementation and let others innovate on what you built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim oreilly (talk • contribs)

[edit] Bring Template name and Title into agreement?

The template is currently called FOSS celeb, and since it seems that people went with the theme implied by the title, key figures, rather than the name, it may be time to bring the two in line, so either change the content to include only people that can be considered part of the public face of FOSS, or rename the template to FOSS figures or FOSS bios or some such. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This has been perking in my head. I prefer FOSS key figures unless there is a limit of two words. Celeb could be mistaken for people who merely have fame, which is what Celebrity usually means. If WP wants to go with a template for those who are part of the public face of FOSS FOSS spokepeople would be better then FOSS celeb. - Lentower 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is the heading. All of the people on this template might fit appropriately under "FOSS celebrities", or (better) "notable FOSS advocates and contributors", or "well-known FOSS personalities", but I'm not convinced it is appropriate to class them as "key figures of FOSS history." How do you define a key figure? And how long is history? I wouldn't say ESR was a key figure, he is well-known but I think his contributions have been largely fringe and derivative rather than key. Brian Paul and Paul Vixie have such pathetic WP articles I really find it hard to believe they are truly key figures either. Good as he is, has Eben Moglen really been contributing and well-known for long enough to be a key historical figure? And Bruce Perens? Theo de Raadt, Miguel de Icaza and Andrew Tridgell are well-known, and highly-important in their own fields and projects, but are they really key figures in FOSS history? NicM 23:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC).
Yes, and if you care to look back, this is exactly what I've been saying all along. However, everybody seems to be enjoying criticising the same point over and over and over and over and over and over again rather than making any constructive, actionable suggestions towards a solution. Is asking questions so much fun? Apparently! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I hardly see a wealth of suggestions from you either. At least I give three options for alternative headings. NicM 11:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC).
E.g. [1] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So, what is your suggestion for the title? I don't like just "FOSS figures" or the template will end up with everyone on it. "Key FOSS figures" reads well but still seems open to a lot of interpretation. What about "notable FOSS figures"? Even that still leaves a major problem of criteria: I would suggest either that they must have a significant Wikipedia article, or that we start with the current contents and that there must be a consensus to include or remove them on the talk page before further changes are made. This would leave ESR, at present, as there doesn't seem to be a consensus to remove him. NicM 12:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC).
Yes, I don't like ESR, but he belongs in the context. Now, notability would be good. I see two criteria being bandied around that people seem to feel are relevant to a greater or lesser extent:
  • Coding contributions
  • Advocacy or discussion of FOSS concepts
A third criterion, probably the one that's hardest to defend, is recognition by the general public - this includes book contributions, appearances in documentary films, and especially magazine coverage. Lastly, there are awards like the FSF awards which seem to be aiming to move deserving people out of obscurity, but Brian Paul would seem to be an example where this wasn't successful - I'd never heard of him before. So what do we think of these criteria, and putting "notable" on the template? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the criteria you suggest can work, but they need to be well-defined to avoid stuff that is just a matter of opinion and inevitably ends up with endless disagreements and discussions. What about including people only if they:
  • Are the author of a published book about FOSS philosophy or concepts (not web, not self-published, not a textbook), this one is easy to prove;
  • Are the founder or chief developer of a significantly influential FOSS project, something unarguable large, significant and widely used (Linux, one of the big three *BSDs, Apache, Bind, Sendmail, X, GCC). This one is fairly easy to show too, although for some edge-case projects a consensus will need to be reached if they are significant enough;
  • Are the head of a significant FOSS organisation, again some edge-cases may need discussion;
  • Are a well-known FOSS "personality," although this one is maybe too subjective;
  • Have made a significant enough contribution in some other way that enables consensus to be reached that they should be included.
Even this list has some scope for disagreement, but it may at least be clearer by what rules people are to be judged and what the focus of the discussion should be. I think it would be best to avoid things like recognition, it is terribly hard to measure even subjectively (it is far too easy to end up with an endless "i've heard of him"/"i haven't" exchange). And I think we should use our criteria rather than the ones other people have used when giving out their awards. This would probably keep most of the current list and give better scope for discussing any edge cases and new additions.
In the end, if criteria like this are chosen, there is going to have to be discussion and consensus on some additions and removals: I see no way to make them clear enough not to require it in some cases. Unless we can come up with some other, simple, easily verifiable criteria instead (length of WP article? google hits with "OSS OR FOSS"? straight vote, or consensus a la AfD, for each additition/removal? something else?). NicM 16:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC).
Okay, we're having difficulty developing a framework here. I would say that the template will become quite useless if we include all the people that are founders or lead developers of the projects you have listed plus Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora (which would have to be given similar weight to the BSDs, since, although they're less of a separate development effort, they have much wider distribution and hence recognition). That would be a good criterion to use for a category, but not for a template. If we want to go that way, we really should delete this template and convert the content to a category. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
So, what do you propose? NicM 12:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC).
Leave out the project founders and lead developers. Debian elects a new leader every year iirc. Too many. If they've been more vocal, or have an additional point of notability (e.g. starting a second big project), they can be included. Bruce Perens would be a case in point. He was co-initiator of the open source vs. free debate/initiative, and regularly provides commentary for magazines and such like. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Adams?

I don't think Rick Adams belongs here, the article gives no link to anything open source or free software, only to the internet, while the internet has played a large part in the growth and popularity of both open source and free software projects, it is not one in and of itself. The organization he was involved with helped with the ISC, but Adams was not UUNET. Feel free to debate that one. Janizary 00:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read that paragraph about Rick Adams jump starting Software as a Service? Is that not important to the development of FOSS? The UUNET article has a link that explains it a bit more: Tim O'Reilly discusses UUNET as an open source-derived business. Includes some history. Yes, the Rick Adams article needs some work here. Perhaps you can do it? Hunt down some more citations? Etc. - Lentower 02:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get your info about Adams and UUNET? He founded UUNET! I was there when he came up with the idea of UUNET, and then sold it to the USENIX Association. And watched it as he took from non-profit to for-profit. He left a nice piece of change behind that was used for a number of non-profit activities. This is all mentioned in the article. The rest is not. With some of the money he made on the transformed for-profit UUNET, he funded BSDI and was part of their management team. This included paying for their half of the legal costs of fighting with UCal Berkeley against AT&T Bsd#Net.2F2_and_legal_troubles to free BSD, which allowed all the freed versions of BSD to exist, and for all the BSD software to be available to be part of GNU/Linux distributions. Without Rick's dollars, as well as his and Keith Bostic's work on the law suit, there would be no freed BSD software. Yes, the Rick Adams article needs some work here. Perhaps you can do it? Hunt down the citations? Etc. - Lentower 02:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
And Jimbo Wales founded Wikipedia, but how much has he actually done here and how much has been the people around him? Just because Jimbo founded Wikipedia does not mean I would credit him with anything accomplished by Wikipedia, I apply the same logic to Adams. He didn't do specific things for free or open source software from any of the sources I've seen, UUNET did - he was no more UUNET than Wales is Wikipedia. Being a part of the closed source derivative of BSD doesn't really make him a big open source proponent, his fight was not to free the BSDs, it was to not be sued into the ground for trademark and copyright infringement. The non-profits he helped to create I suppose can lend credibility to the idea of him being here, but I don't think the man had any intent on anything free or open based on anything I've yet seen, or would you credit Dave Mustaine with Saint Anger? Janizary 04:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric S Raymond?

I have the same to say about Eric S Raymond -- I don't think he belongs here. He has to date contributed nothing but an essay that is at best sometimes recognised as being vaguely insightful. Maintaining the jargon file is hardly noteworthy either, since we're doing much the same thing right now, I don't think my name belongs on this list just because I piddled around with the OpenBSD article. Janizary 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree on the subject of Eric Raymond. He does, however, seem to have managed to promote himself so relentlessly that he is now included in every noteworthy edited volume or film on the subject. I also disagree with people who think that Richard Dawkins is an influential evolutionary biologist - he merely popularised ideas of other people, but I think this gets to the heart of the "Wikipedia is not about truth" issue. (btw, Raymond also claims he was influential in the open-sourcing of Netscape - difficult to verify beyond the claim that he was an advisor to the board). We may disagree with including Raymond on moral grounds due to his limited contribution, but it's a fact that he's widely being treated as an open source figurehead. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Some people have ideas. Other people are able to successfully communicate those ideas to the public. You can call it self-promotion if you like, but it's hard to argue that Eric isn't a FOSS celeb. Argue instead that there are too many such to list in a template. RussNelson 17:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Raymond makes strong assertions about his own notability that are not entirely in proportion to his achievements. That's what I mean by self-promotion. Popularisation is fine as long as you give credit to the actual originator of the idea, and make a proper effort to correct others incorrectly crediting you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If you have ideas that people should listen to, first they must listen to you. You can't do that unless you promote yourself. I have great ideas all the time, but I'm the most famous person nobody has ever heard of, so nobody hears my ideas. Sorry to say, but successful popularization never works the way you describe it. It really takes away from your message if you constantly explain that it's somebody else's idea. That always makes people wonder why the other person isn't presenting the ideas. If it's important to get the ideas acrosss to people, then you don't worry about giving credit. If it's more important to give credit, and failure to promulgate the ideas is acceptable, then that is what you do. RussNelson 03:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
No disrespect to your particular views, but this is hardly relevant to the template. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Just pointing out that Janizary is far off the mark. If he doesn't like the fact that Eric is a FOSS Celebrity, he should work towards deleting the template. I mean, the very FACT that he proposed the deletion is a sign that Eric has celebrity enough to have enemies. Every person on that list has people who don't like them. Janizary doesn't like Eric; so what of it? RussNelson 23:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll note that Janizary also marked another person, Rick Adams for removal, does Janizary hate him too? Is Janizary writing death threats to Rick Adams and Eric Raymond? No, Janizary pointed to the simple fact that the man has done nothing of note, except for perhaps posture about and make wild claims that noone really buys into. Perhaps you should let Janizary speak for Janizary, instead of putting words in his mouth. Janizary didn't say this template should be deleted, he said that two of the people on it don't seem to be worth mentioning, so, just to repeat Janizary's point, since Raymond has done nothing, why should he be listed here? Janizary 03:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems that your concern is about notability, in which case, the thing to do is to nominate the article about Raymond for deletion. Unfortunately, he is a book author, and this is usually enough argument to sway people to keep an article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me like you think a FOSS celebrity needs to be a coder. People who merely promote the works of others are doing something, so your claim that "Raymond has done nothing" is patently false. Clearly people buy into Eric's claims, so "noone really buys into" is patently false. Since I think that anybody reading this can see that your charges are meritless, so I'll leave you to have the last word (because I know it'll be yet another falsehood.) RussNelson 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing hugely exciting, but he does code. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Lawrence Lessig - if I thought only coders mattered why do you suppose I support him being on this list? As Raymond has accomplished nothing and made wild claims about being an important contributor to Linux, I don't support him, yet here I am supporting Lawrence Lessig. Curious, perhaps it is because I can see no merit to listing Raymond but can see a reason for Lessig? And what of Eben Moglen? Tim O'Reilly? I seem to think all three of them belong, or at the very least, have merit for being on this template. Perhaps you are one of the people that buy into Raymond's posturing and bragardry, but I have yet to see the man accomplish anything and the article on Wikipedia does not show him as being anything more as a sideshow that detracts from open source's image and communal cohesion. Most others on the template have done significant things. Do you have anything other than, "some people buy into him," to support him being on this list? Sure, Raymond is noteworthy enough to merit an article, he's more famous than say Todd C. Miller, the developer of sudo, but he is not a key figure to anything about free software or open source. Janizary 22:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This should cheer you up, Russ. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reader's perspective

I think it's worth reminding ourselves that what we are trying to achieve here is deliver value to the reader, not pander to the ego of FOSS personalities. Who are the three or five leading figures that people should read about if they read nothing else? Note these should be people that have substantial articles written about them. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List people who defect from FOSS?

E.g. Jordan Hubbard. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone changes their opinions, dies, moves job, whatever, I don't think it should make their historical contributions vanish. NicM 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
I agree. You either shaped the landscape or you didn't. There is something else useful though: the box could be split into lifelong contributors and others, or it could be split into dedicated contributors and incidental contributors, etc. Gronky 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Beyond that (unless it has changed recentl), Jordan has help keep the kernel of MacOS X open source software. Though I prefer people who are not partial defectors from FOSS, people who make significant partial contributions belong in this "FOSS Key Figures" template. Though such actions are not part of the Free Software Movement, they are part of the Open Source Movement.
There are a number of ways this template could be partitioned. Lentower 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus on recent deletions

Samsara seems to be the only editor who is deleting people from the template, with the exception of my deleting Bill Joy, months back. He has not built any consensus here. I have no problem with the template growing alot, as long as each person has made a significant FOSS contribution. BTW, Eric Raymond belongs in this template. Lentower 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope your comment is taking into account what I and NicM discussed, and the fact that if this template bloats significantly more, it will likely fail its next AfD, as this was one of the concerns. Nobody was going to take Eric out, although his semi-significance is regretted by several of us. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please document deletions here on the talk page

Edit summary documentation of deletions is quickly "lost". Near term, below the first screen. Long term, on older pages. It would help prevent re-adds and edit wars, if each deletion was noted here, with a short explanation, and both edit summaries (for the template page and the bio page), wikilink to the revision of this talk page that had the deletion explanation. Perhaps as sub-sections of a "Deleted Figures" section on this talk page. Lentower 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the nature of Wikipedia is such that those that edit frequently and persistently will eventually get their will. However, I am a strong advocate of WP:BB and consider your suggestion to contradict it. Typically such procedure as you describe is only followed on semi-protected featured articles frequently subject to vandalism. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Vixie

Paul Vixie belongs on this "FOSS Key Figures" template. He not only has done and supervised significant FOSS software development. He has also worked to keep the Internet free for all, and net neutral. For several decades now. I plan to add him back, when I have a chance during or after my Thanksgiving travels. Lentower 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Both Paul Vixie and Rich Salz had significant influence on the development of FOSS and the Internet in general. While they haven't had as much impact lately, they certainly were a huge influence back in the 1980s. I guess maybe "celebrity" status does fade, but I think that is more a problem with the name of this template than the list. Wrs1864 14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthias Ettrich

People keep trying to add Matthias Ettrich. There's no question but that KDE is good stuff, but there's no evidence of him being a celebrity. Who celebrates his work? Point me to some magazine articles. Point me to some newspaper articles. Any media mentions at all. I've never heard of him. I'm pretty well connected and I keep track of FOSS news. Sure, I've heard of KDE, but not Matthias. RussNelson 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Celeb" is an abbreviation for "Key Historical Figure". KHFs do not need to be celebrities. KHFs do not need to celebrated. They do have to have made a key contribution to the FOSS movement. Though KDE is an important piece of software, it was not a key contribution. There are several alternatives. None of them were too hard to do. And it's the kind of software that hackers like to design and write. KDE is significantly less important then say GNU Emacs or GCC, much easier to get right, and not important. GNU Emacs and GCC were both breakthrough pieces of free software. GCC convinced most of the Unix community that the GNU Project was not a pipe dream, and that a GNU operating system was only a matter of time.
Granted KDE is not a key contribution, Matthias Ettrich is not a KHF. Lentower 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I find this argument pretty curious. KDE was a pretty collossal undertaking. Certainly we need to establish exactly what the criteria for inclusion are here. Anyone involved in BSD after 1985 seems to get an entry, for instance. Chris Cunningham 09:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be satisfied with some press coverage outside of the Open Source community. For example, an article in Linux Journal doesn't count (although I subscribed to Linux Journal from issue #1 through two years ago and I've *still* never heard of him.) RussNelson 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'd argue that the same is true for most of the BSD people in the template. Anyway, yeah, criteria. Harald Welte is probably the highest-profile developer outside of the FSF involved in pursuing legal action for GPL violations, and he's now the key free software guy at OpenMoko: is he worth including? I've no particular opinion on the Ettrich situation BTW, beyond pointing out that he'd been misspelled the last time he was included. Chris Cunningham 01:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahhhh, but I've heard of the "BSD" people. I did a quick poll of some knowledgable friends, and none of them had heard of Ettrich. One of them said ".... but I should have", which I think is what prompts people to try to add him. But Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used to create reputation, but instead to report on it. RussNelson 02:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Meh. I immediately recognised Ettrich's (misspelled) name when it was removed, but hadn't heard of most of the BSD people. We can't really go on "can random Wikipedians provide anecdotes" as a notability criterion, even where the Wikipedians in question (i.e. present company) are obviously in a good position to do so. As-is, over 50% of the people on this template are sitting with stub-class articles, so we should either weed them out for the time being or take an inclusionist approach for a while and re-evaluate in six months. Chris Cunningham 02:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of BSD people who are not included and shouldn't be. KDE was a much smaller deal than, e.g., the X Window System. One criteria I'm using here is being a pioneer - being the first to do something big in FOSS. Lentower 04:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Added back because he was the first to strive for a free software desktop - GNOME came later (the first, CDE was of course proprietary). Today desktop Linux is a big deal. Ergo, his was a massive contribution to free software - it moved the platform from the ancient CLI to something a little more modern. If Ettrich (KDE and LyX) isn't notable enough, then neither is Icaza (GNOME, Gnumeric and Mono? Please.) Brisvegas 08:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against Matthias personally, but this isn't the place to recognize contributions. It's a place where *celebrity* is recognized. In order for somebody to be a celebrity, they need to be talked about. Who talks about Matthias? Surely you can cite a dozen articles written about him, or quoting him, if you think he should be here. RussNelson (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is an article about key people in the HISTORY of free software. The fact that Ettrich is a quiet achiever as opposed to a well-quoted loud-mouth like Icaza (who's a great guy) or de Raadt (ditto) should not overshadow the fact that Matthias was the first to successfully strive for a free desktop environment, work which continues to this day. It's in fact ironic that a lot of the people on this list have nothing to do with free software - they are part of the open source community (quite different focus and goals).
The fact that inclusion on this list is determined by some nebulous criteria that only you and a select group of editors on this page seem to know and lecture newcomers to this template about smacks of original research, which goes against what Wikipedia stands for. Where are the verifiable sources (e.g. a list compiled by a historian) that mentions the others on this list as key free software figures? Or is it just based on the opinion of editors who seem arbitrary in those they choose to include? I will not get into a revert war with you, but if you think it should be based on number of media cites, then please change the name from "Key figures in the history of free software" to "Free software figures with high press coverage". The current title does not reflect your criteria. Brisvegas 07:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)